There is no firm agreement among neurologists as to the number of senses because of differing definitions of what constitutes a sense. One definition states that an exteroceptive sense is a faculty by which outside stimuli are perceived. The traditional five senses are sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste, a classification attributed to Aristotle. Humans are considered to have at least five additional senses that include: nociception (pain); equilibrioception (balance); proprioception and kinaesthesia (joint motion and acceleration); sense of time; thermoception (temperature differences); and possibly an additional weak magnetoception (direction), and six more if interoceptive senses (see other internal senses below) are also considered.

One commonly recognized categorisation for human senses is as follows: chemoreception; photoreception; mechanoreception; and thermoception. This categorisation has been criticized as too restrictive, however, as it does not include categories for accepted senses such as the sense of time and sense of pain.

Carrots have long been touted for their efficacy in improving eyesight, and generations of kids have been admonished to not leave them on their plates lest they end up needing glasses. But are carrots the sight-boosters popular wisdom asserts them to be? And if not, where did this belief begin?

While carrots are a good source of vitamin A (which is important for healthy eyesight, skin, growth, and resisting infection), eating them won't improve vision. The purported link between carrots and markedly acute vision is a matter of lore, not of science. And it's lore of the deliberately manufactured type.

In World War II, Britain's air ministry spread the word that a diet of these vegetables helped pilots see Nazi bombers attacking at night. That was a lie intended to cover the real matter of what was underpinning the Royal Air Force's successes: Airborne Interception Radar, also known as AI. The secret new system pinpointed some enemy bombers before they reached the English Channel.

British Intelligence didn't want the Germans to find out about the superior new technology helping protect the nation, so they created a rumor to afford a somewhat plausible-sounding explanation for the sudden increase in bombers being shot down. News stories began appearing in the British press about extraordinary personnel manning the defenses, including Flight Lieutenant John Cunningham, an RAF pilot dubbed "Cats Eyes" on the basis of his exceptional night vision that allowed him to spot his prey in the dark. Cunningham's abilities were chalked up to his love of carrots. Further stories claimed RAF pilots were being fed goodly amounts of this root vegetable to foster similar abilities in them.

Rockefeller commune drug slaver trained predator animal Doctor disinformation. When you get old you can tell the improvement from eating carrots if you have always had 20/20 vision. The natural food and plants were already enginered for your health and medicine and man will never improve on them.

Rockefeller commune drug slaver trained predator animal Doctor disinformation. When you get old you can tell the improvement from eating carrots if you have always had 20/20 vision. The natural food and plants were already enginered for your health and medicine and man will never improve on them.

Unfortunately carrots don't cure dementia either.

Logged

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Though Einstein is the scientist most frequently associated with the theory of relativity, there are several thinkers who are responsible for its formulation. (he is responsible for the theories of special relativity and general relativity)

The first known person to theorize about relativity was Galileo, who articulated the first "relativity principle" in the seventeenth century. In generating his relativity principle, Galileo removed the distinction between stationary and moving observers, arguing that people on earth cannot tell if they are really at rest or if they are moving with the rotation of the earth each day. To demonstrate this, Galileo used the example of a cannonball falling from the top of a ship's mast. He noted that the cannonball will land at the base of the mast whether the ship is moving steadily through the ocean, or whether it is at rest in a dock. Even if they observe the falling ball, people on the ship cannot tell if they are really at rest or if they are moving with the ship. They cannot distinguish their state of rest from the ship's state by observing motion that takes place within the "reference frame" of the ship. In other words, a person at rest on the deck of a ship cannot determine whether the ship is at rest or moving at a steady speed through the ocean by observing actions that happen on the ship itself. That person must observe the ship relative to its surrounding environment in order to make such a determination.http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/einstein/galileo.html

The 'flat earth' myth was concocted and popularized by Washington Irving and a French erudit and the 'flat error' was declared by Darwininst historians, who compared the denial of Darwin's theory to Columbus's struggle for acceptance by his scholastic religious contemporaries.

Neither Christopher Columbus, nor his contemporaries, believed the earth was flat. Yet this curious illusion persists today, firmly established with the help of the media, textbooks, teachers--even noted historians.

We all know that Christopher Columbus encountered stiff resistance about his idea of sailing off West to try and reach the East Indies. Many of us have laboured under the impression that people were concerned that he would sail off the edge of the Earth which was widely believed to be flat. History is thought to have vindicated Columbus against those filled with the Christian superstition of a flat Earth who held on to old fashioned beliefs. A minority of people are even under the impression that Galileo's trial centred on the subject rather than whether the Earth orbited the sun.

It comes as some surprise, therefore, to find that Columbus was wrong and his critics were right - not because the world is actually flat after all, but because at the time everyone knew it was a globe and were arguing about how big it was. The idea that the uncouth people of the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat is an example of the myth that has been propagated since the nineteenth century to give us a quite unfair view of this vibrant and exciting period.

So what was Columbus's mistake? The disagreement between him and his critics was over the size of the world - not an easy thing to measure. The story of this controversy can be traced back to the ancient Greeks and the various ways their writings were transmitted to the West.

The invention of the flat Earth myth can be laid at the feet of Washington Irving, who included it in his historical novel on Columbus, and the wider idea that the everyone in the Middle Ages was deluded has been widely accepted ever since.

Fascinating.Now I have to re-think everything since I've been completely brainwashed!When it comes to the "symbols" -- I really think this is what is used for brainwashing, too. Our minds have been shown to work in pictoral form. If a thought can be replaced by a symbol, we are able to be completely controlled.

It's the groupthink that perplexes me. I mean, why is it so important to be "accepted by the group"? Other than being institutionalized by the education system, trained to obey the state, and brainwashed (by the media) to believe that groups are more important than individuals... so why are groups so influential?

When you think about it, it's like there's a NWO operation to actively hunt down and kill the message of liberty. But freedom lives forever!

^ Two Individuals (don't tread on them!)

Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hi free, Brocke did a bang up job on this one didn't he. Can you imagine the century old concepts passed on to the bloodline of the elites, the mastery of controll over the masses, its staggering. An elite tribe who's offsprings are raised, tutored and mentored in the art. Every conceivale art of deception is basic, connections globaly , the unadulterated concept they are above the masses. Those supercorps involved, MIC , agricultural, medicinal, educational, propaganda controll, protected and highly trained insurgents, mercenary forces, NATO, the inner circle of oil, drugs, gold, banks, weaponry, and GOV- political control, technoligy that makes HG Well's manifesto appear to be infantile. Above all, the rhetoric, society's mindset has been manipulated by this group of elite parasites, step by step, each and every day 24/7.

Hi free, Brocke did a bang up job on this one didn't he. Can you imagine the century old concepts passed on to the bloodline of the elites, the mastery of controll over the masses, its staggering. An elite tribe who's offsprings are raised, tutored and mentored in the art. Every conceivale art of deception is basic, connections globaly , the unadulterated concept they are above the masses. Those supercorps involved, MIC , agricultural, medicinal, educational, propaganda controll, protected and highly trained insurgents, mercenary forces, NATO, the inner circle of oil, drugs, gold, banks, weaponry, and GOV- political control, technoligy that makes HG Well's manifesto appear to be infantile. Above all, the rhetoric, society's mindset has been manipulated by this group of elite parasites, step by step, each and every day 24/7.

So true, Chris.

Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

At the age of 36, whilst married, Gandhi decided to become celibate in order to achieve a state of enlightenment (through the Hindu religion). As he got older, he became more and more fascinated with sex to the point that, second only to non-violence, it was the subject he most talked about. In order to “perfect” his celibate state, Gandhi would sleep naked with young naked women. One of the women was the 16 year old wife of his grand-nephew Kanu Gandhi. When he wanted to share his bed with his 19 year old grandniece Manu Gandhi, he wrote to her father and told him that they were sharing a bed so that he could “correct her sleeping posture”. When his stenographer R. P. Parasuram found him sleeping naked with Manu, he resigned in disgust.

A celibate state. I have often wondered how a man attempts to ignore his natural reproductive organ. Even Gandhi,and he may have attempted to put an end to what is totally natural.. despite this show of weakness, he delivered a message.(we can't take that away from him) When I was a kid I worked as a busboy in a fancy restaurant. When the Catholic Monsenior would show up with a couple of high class hookers, the waitresses would go nuts over who would get his table, he was a huge tipper. Every now and gain, a few of the nuns would disappear their pregnancy's were not publicized. My point, how is it possible a man or woman to remain celibate, mentally and physically. Some religions beleive in celibacy, one with heaven etc.I think it would make them mentally deranged.WIKI. In this context, "celibacy" retains its original meaning of "unmarried". Though even the married may observe continence, abstaining from sexual intercourse, the obligation to be celibate is seen as a consequence of the obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.[1] Advocates see clerical celibacy as "a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour."[1] I went off the map.

A celibate state. I have often wondered how a man attempts to ignore his natural reproductive organ. Even Gandhi,and he may have attempted to put an end to what is totally natural.. despite this show of weakness, he delivered a message.(we can't take that away from him) When I was a kid I worked as a busboy in a fancy restaurant. When the Catholic Monsenior would show up with a couple of high class hookers, the waitresses would go nuts over who would get his table, he was a huge tipper. Every now and gain, a few of the nuns would disappear their pregnancy's were not publicized. My point, how is it possible a man or woman to remain celibate, mentally and physically. Some religions beleive in celibacy, one with heaven etc.I think it would make them mentally deranged.WIKI. In this context, "celibacy" retains its original meaning of "unmarried". Though even the married may observe continence, abstaining from sexual intercourse, the obligation to be celibate is seen as a consequence of the obligation to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.[1] Advocates see clerical celibacy as "a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour."[1] I went off the map.

As the thread is about the false history and science that we have been taught perhaps this is an appropriate subject. Gandhi's message may have been inspirational and commendable. I prefer to judge a person by their actions not their words. Gandhi's words were great indeed, but I don't think much of the man.

Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity is a book by US Army Colonel G. B. Singh. Written nearly 60 years after his assassination, Singh challenges the image of Gandhi as a saintly, benevolent and non-violent leader of Indian independence with a biography of the so-called real Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, told through Gandhi's own writings and actions over the course of his life. The book claims that Gandhi emulated racism from the Hindu ideology of caste towards the Blacks of South Africa and the Untouchables, instigated ethnic hatred against foreign communities, and, to this end, was involved in covering up the killing of American engineer William Francis Doherty.

Singh puts forward that the portrayal of Gandhi as a great leader is "the work of the Hindu propaganda machine" and Christian clergy with ulterior motives; and, furthermore, it was based on irrationality and deception which historians have failed to critically examine.

In 1921, Gandhi helped cover up the murder of an American citizen by Gandhians who were rioting during the second Satyagraha movement. The murdered man was William Francis Doherty, an engineer working in Bombay. His wife dictated a sworn statement to a Los Angeles notary in 1929.

The Murder of William Francis Doherty

Mrs. Doherty's Sworn Statement

State of California County of Los Angeles

ANNETTE H. DOHERTY, being first duly sworn oath, deposes and says:

My deceased husband, William Francis Doherty, an American citizen, was a mechanical and electrical engineer and business associate of Mr. Richard J. Brenchley, engaged in sand extraction at Mumbra, adjacent to Bombay, India.

On November 19th, 1921, as he was quietly proceeding to the Bombay Improvement Trust work-shops, he was set upon, his eyes were gouged out and eventually he was beaten to death by a group of rioters in a public street of Byculla, a suburb of Bombay.

This was during the visit of the Prince of Wales to India, when Gandhi was at the height of his popularity as a saint and political leader, and had, through his violent speeches against the British, worked his followers into a frenzy of race hatred. My husband was probably mistaken for a Britisher when he was murdered by Gandhi’s followers.

Within three days following this killing of my husband, word was brought me from Gandhi that he greatly desired an interview with me, begging me to set a time when I would receive him. I was then stopping with an American family in Bombay. Gandhi’s emissary was Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, the Indian poetess and politician.

Mrs. Naidu was greatly agitated, and made many statements to me that I feel she would now like to unsay. Her chief concern, however, was that the American public should never be allowed to hear of this outrage committed upon my husband; and she very frankly asked me my price for refraining from ever discussing or advertising the affair in America and from myself returning to America. Under no condition, said Mrs. Naidu, would they be willing that the American public should learn that they were killing people so promiscuously that even a white face cost a man’s life.http://www.gandhism.net/williamdoherty.php

Gandhi and South African BlacksOne of Gandhi's major "achievements" in South Africa was to promote racial segregation by refusing to share a post office door with the black natives. Gandhi became a Sgt. Major in the British Army and participated in the 1906 British war against the black Zulus. Gandhi wrote extensively about his experiences with the blacks of South Africa. He always termed them "Kaffirs" and his writings reveal a deep-seated disdain for these African natives.http://www.gandhism.net/gandhiandblacks.php

Logged

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Louis Pasteur did more harm than good. Germs do not cause disease, the terrain or condition of the host is what causes disease.

The germ – or microbian - theory of disease was popularized by Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), the inventor of pasteurization. This theory says that there are fixed, external germs (or microbes) which invade the body and cause a variety of separate, definable diseases. In order to get well, you need to identify and then kill whatever germ made you sick. The tools generally employed are drugs, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. Prevention includes the use of vaccines as well as drugs, which - theoretically at least - work by keeping germs at bay.

Just prior to the time that Pasteur began promoting the “monomorphic” germ theory, a contemporary by the name of Claude Bernard (1813-1878) was developing the theory that the body's ability to heal was dependent on its general condition or internal environment. Thus disease occurred only when the terrain or internal environment of the body became favorable to disease.

An extremely brilliant contemporary of Claude Bernard's was Antoine Bechamp (1816-1908). Bechamp had degrees in physics, chemistry and biology. In addition he was a medical doctor and a university professor. Bechamp built upon and extended Bernard's idea, developing his own theory of health and disease which revolved around the concept of “pleomorphism.”

Through meticulous research and in contrast to Pasteur's subsequent, misinformed promotion of "monomorphic" or single-formed, fixed state microbes (or germs), Bechamp had discovered tiny organisms (or microorganisms) he called “microzyma” which were “pleomorphic” or “many-formed.” (Pleo = many and morph = form.) Interestingly, these microzyma were found to be present in all things whether living or dead, and they persist even when the host has died. Many were impervious to heat as well.

Bechamp’s microzyma, including specific bacteria, could take on a number of forms during the host’s life cycle and these forms depended (as Bernard contended) primarily on the chemistry of their environment, or the biological terrain, or to put it a third way, the condition of the host. In other words there is no single cause of disease. Instead disease results when microzyma change form, function and toxicity according to the terrain of the host. Bad bacteria, viruses and fungi are merely the forms assumed by the microzymas when there is a condition or terrain that favors disease and these "bad" microzyma themselves give off toxic byproducts, further contributing to a weakened terrain.

This is how Bechamp himself put it in his last book The Third Element of the Blood: ". . . the microzyma, whatever its origin, is a ferment; it is organized, it is living, capable of multiplying, of becoming diseased and of communicating disease. . . All mycrozyma are ferments of the same order - that is to say, they are organisms, able to produce alcohol, acetic acid, lactic acid and butyric acid. . . In a state of health the microzymas of the organism act harmoniously, and our life is, in every meaning of the word, a regular fermentation. In a state of disease, the microzymas do not act harmoniously, and the fermentation is disturbed; the mycrozymas have either changed their function or are placed in an abnormal situation by some modification of the medium. . ."

Through his research, Bechamp showed that the essence of life is a “fermentation” process of digestion, assimilation, disassimilation and excretion. Interruptions in any of these functions would result in a lack of energy, full blown disease or even death. Rather than causing disease, Bechamp showed that harmful mycrozyma – which Pasteur took to be external germs attacking a host - actually arises when the body's normal metabolic processes - or "fermentations" - are disturbed.

Thus, according to Bernard, Bechamp and their successors, disease occurs to a large extent as a function of biology and as a result of the changes that take place when metabolic processes are thrown off. Germs become symptoms that stimulate the occurrence of more symptoms - which ultimately culminate in disease. A body thus weakend also naturally becomes vulnerable to external harmful microzyma - or if you prefer pleomorphic germs. So, our bodies are in effect mini-ecosystems, or biological terrains in which nutritional status, level of toxicity and PH or acid/alkaline balance play key roles.

For these and other reasons Bechamp argued strenuously against vaccines, asserting that "The most serious disorders may be provoked by the injection of living organisms into the blood." Untold numbers of researchers have agreed with him. Nonetheless Pasteur and his like-minded contemporary Robert Koch - both being shameless self-promoters - easily won the propaganda war favoring the widespread use of vaccines - which then made boatloads of money for everyone associated. In fact, according to researcher E. Douglas Hume, if it had not been for mass acceptance of vaccines, the germ theory might very well have died a quiet death.

Decades after Pasteur's death researchers tried to expose the fact that Pasteur liberally "borrowed", plagiarized and misinterpreted the work of others, especially that of Bechamp - which is how Pasteur came up with the “germ” theory. The efforts of these researchers unfortunately have had little effect on the practice of medicine or the way we think about disease.

Instead, as Dr. Bernard Jensen and Mark Anderson assert in their book Empty Harvest, "The germ theory is still believed to be the central cause of disease because around it exists a colossal supportive infrastructure of commercial interests that built multi-billion-dollar industries based upon this theory. To the scientific satisfaction of many in the health field, it has long been disproven as the primary cause of disease. Germs are, rather, an effect of disease."

Interestingly and to this day, the whole theory of microzymas and how they operate has never been disproved - or proven false - by opposing research. To the contrary, decades of research – beginning with Pasteur himself - has only served to bolster the mycrozyma theory. Not only does the germ theory remain unsubstantiated today, but Pasteur himself recanted it in his private journal, writing the famous words which were revealed many decades after his death:

“It is not the germ that causes disease but the terrain in which the germ is found.”

The Loudness War AnalyzedRecorded music doesn’t sound as good as it used to. Recordings sound muddy, clipped and lack punch. This is due to the ‘loudness war’ that has been taking place in recording studios. To make a track stand out from the rest of the pack, recording engineers have been turning up the volume on recorded music. Louder tracks grab the listener’s attention, and in this crowded music market, attention is important. And thus the loudness war – engineers must turn up the volume on their tracks lest the track sound wimpy when compared to all of the other loud tracks. However, there’s a downside to all this volume. Our music is compressed. The louds are louds and the softs are loud, with little difference. The result is that our music seems strained, there is little emotional range, and listening to loud all the time becomes tedious and tiring.http://musicmachinery.com/2009/03/23/the-loudness-war/

There are more words spelled E before I, than I before E used in the English language! There are 923 words that have the letter combination CIE in them. There are 21 times as many words that break the rule than that follow it.

I am a social anthropologist, but what I do is not the traditional intrepid sort of anthropology where you go and study strange tribes in places with mud huts and monsoons and malaria.

I really don't see why anthropologists feel they have to travel to unpronounceable corners of the world in order to study strange tribal cultures with bizarre beliefs and mysterious customs, when in fact the weirdest and most puzzling tribe of all is right here on our doorstep. I am of course talking about my own native culture - the British.

And if you want examples of bizarre beliefs and weird customs, you need look no further than our attitude to drinking and our drinking habits. Pick up any newspaper and you will read that we are a nation of loutish binge-drinkers - that we drink too much, too young, too fast - and that it makes us violent, promiscuous, anti-social and generally obnoxious.

Clearly, we Brits do have a bit of a problem with alcohol, but why?

The problem is that we Brits believe that alcohol has magical powers - that it causes us to shed our inhibitions and become aggressive, promiscuous, disorderly and even violent.

But we are wrong.

In high doses, alcohol impairs our reaction times, muscle control, co-ordination, short-term memory, perceptual field, cognitive abilities and ability to speak clearly. But it does not cause us selectively to break specific social rules. It does not cause us to say, "Oi, what you lookin' at?" and start punching each other. Nor does it cause us to say, "Hey babe, fancy a shag?" and start groping each other.

The effects of alcohol on behaviour are determined by cultural rules and norms, not by the chemical actions of ethanol.

There is enormous cross-cultural variation in the way people behave when they drink alcohol. There are some societies (such as the UK, the US, Australia and parts of Scandinavia) that anthropologists call "ambivalent" drinking-cultures, where drinking is associated with disinhibition, aggression, promiscuity, violence and anti-social behaviour.

There are other societies (such as Latin and Mediterranean cultures in particular, but in fact the vast majority of cultures), where drinking is not associated with these undesirable behaviours - cultures where alcohol is just a morally neutral, normal, integral part of ordinary, everyday life - about on a par with, say, coffee or tea. These are known as "integrated" drinking cultures.

This variation cannot be attributed to different levels of consumption - most integrated drinking cultures have significantly higher per-capita alcohol consumption than the ambivalent drinking cultures.

Instead the variation is clearly related to different cultural beliefs about alcohol, different expectations about the effects of alcohol, and different social rules about drunken comportment.Youth drinking Buckfast tonic wine In the UK, heavy drinking is associated with a range of stereotypes

This basic fact has been proved time and again, not just in qualitative cross-cultural research, but also in carefully controlled scientific experiments - double-blind, placebos and all. To put it very simply, the experiments show that when people think they are drinking alcohol, they behave according to their cultural beliefs about the behavioural effects of alcohol.

The British and other ambivalent drinking cultures believe that alcohol is a disinhibitor, and specifically that it makes people amorous or aggressive, so when in these experiments we are given what we think are alcoholic drinks - but are in fact non-alcoholic "placebos" - we shed our inhibitions.

We become more outspoken, more physically demonstrative, more flirtatious, and, given enough provocation, some (young males in particular) become aggressive. Quite specifically, those who most strongly believe that alcohol causes aggression are the most likely to become aggressive when they think that they have consumed alcohol.

Our beliefs about the effects of alcohol act as self-fulfilling prophecies - if you firmly believe and expect that booze will make you aggressive, then it will do exactly that. In fact, you will be able to get roaring drunk on a non-alcoholic placebo.

And our erroneous beliefs provide the perfect excuse for anti-social behaviour. If alcohol "causes" bad behaviour, then you are not responsible for your bad behaviour. You can blame the booze - "it was the drink talking", "I was not myself" and so on.

Germs do not cause disease, the terrain or condition of the host is what causes disease.

This reference to disease being a result of the condition of the terrain is referred to as pleomorphism (wikipedia's link to a proper definition of pleomorphism no longer exists. A couple of years ago a very thorough explanation pleomophism was available.).

In the early 1900s to the 1920s/30s there was a debate between advocates for traditional pleomorphic thinking and allopathic practices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopathic_medicine). Allopathic medicine was clearly being supported by the drug companies and medical associations throughout the world.

Interesting how the elimination of traditional knowledge is being done in such a short period of time.

Although many people know better, the myth of Hitler's snub of Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin is persistent. But that's not where the Olympic myths end. The alleged snub is not even the most important of several Berlin Olympics misconceptions that need correcting.

In his day, Ohio State track star James (“J.C.” Jesse) Cleveland Owens (1913-1980) was as famous and admired as Carl Lewis, Tiger Woods, or Michael Jordan are today. (1996 Olympic champ Carl Lewis has been called the “second Jesse Owens.”) But there are significant differences between then and now. Because of racial discrimination in his native land, Jesse Owens was not able to enjoy anything close to the huge financial benefits that African American athletes can expect today. When Owens came home from his success in Nazi Germany, he faced barriers that he would not face today. After the ticker-tape parades, he received no Hollywood offers, no endorsement contracts, and no ad deals. His face didn't appear on cereal boxes. Three years after his victories in Berlin, a failed business deal forced Owens to declare bankruptcy. He made a modest living from his own sports promotions, including racing against a thoroughbred horse. After moving to Chicago in 1949, he started a successful public relations firm. Owens was also a popular jazz disc jockey for many years in Chicago.

The fact that there were American athletes competing in the 1936 Olympics at all is still considered by many to be a blotch on the history of the U.S. Olympic Committee. Germany's open discrimination against Jews and other “non-Aryans” was already public knowledge when many Americans opposed U.S. participation in the “Nazi Olympics.” Opponents to U.S. participation included the American ambassadors to Germany and Austria. But those who warned that Hitler and the Nazis would use the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin for propaganda purposes lost the battle to have the U.S. boycott the Berlin Olympiade.

Which brings us to another Olympic myth. It is often stated that Jesse Owens' four gold medals humiliated Hitler by proving to the world that Nazi claims of Aryan superiority were a lie. But Hitler and the Nazis were far from unhappy with the Olympic results. Not only did Germany win far more medals than any other country at the 1936 Olympics, but the Nazis had pulled off the huge public relations coup that Olympic opponents had predicted, casting Germany and the Nazis, falsely, in a positive light. In the long run, Owens' victories turned out to be only a minor embarrassment for Nazi Germany.

But Jesse Owens' reception by the German public and the spectators in the Olympic stadium was warm. There were German cheers of “Yesseh Oh-vens” or just “Oh-vens” from the crowd. Owens was a true celebrity in Berlin, mobbed by autograph seekers to the point that he complained about all the attention. He later claimed that his reception in Berlin was greater than any other he had ever experienced, and he was quite popular even before the Olympics.

The Snub MythHitler did shun a black American athlete at the 1936 Games, but it wasn't Jesse Owens. On the first day of the Olympics, just before Cornelius Johnson, an African American althlete who won the first gold medal for the U.S. that day, was to receive his award, Hitler left the stadium early. (The Nazis later claimed it was a previously scheduled departure.) Prior to his departure, Hitler had received a number of winners, but Olympic officials informed the German leader that in the future he must receive all of the winners or none at all. After the first day, he opted to acknowledge none. Jesse Owens had his victories on the second day, when Hitler was no longer in attendance. Would Hitler have snubbed Owens if he had been in the stadium on day two? Perhaps. But since he wasn't there, he didn't.

Ironically, the real snub of Owens came from his own president. Even after ticker-tape parades for Owens in New York City and Cleveland, President Franklin D. Roosevelt never publicly acknowledged Owens' achievements (gold in the 100 meter, 200 meter, 400 meter relay, and long jump). Owens was never invited to the White House and never even received a letter of congratulations from the president. Almost two decades passed before another American president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, honored Owens by naming him “Ambassador of Sports” — in 1955.

I am a social anthropologist, but what I do is not the traditional intrepid sort of anthropology where you go and study strange tribes in places with mud huts and monsoons and malaria.

I really don't see why anthropologists feel they have to travel to unpronounceable corners of the world in order to study strange tribal cultures with bizarre beliefs and mysterious customs, when in fact the weirdest and most puzzling tribe of all is right here on our doorstep. I am of course talking about my own native culture - the British.

And if you want examples of bizarre beliefs and weird customs, you need look no further than our attitude to drinking and our drinking habits. Pick up any newspaper and you will read that we are a nation of loutish binge-drinkers - that we drink too much, too young, too fast - and that it makes us violent, promiscuous, anti-social and generally obnoxious.

Clearly, we Brits do have a bit of a problem with alcohol, but why?

The problem is that we Brits believe that alcohol has magical powers - that it causes us to shed our inhibitions and become aggressive, promiscuous, disorderly and even violent.

But we are wrong.

In high doses, alcohol impairs our reaction times, muscle control, co-ordination, short-term memory, perceptual field, cognitive abilities and ability to speak clearly. But it does not cause us selectively to break specific social rules. It does not cause us to say, "Oi, what you lookin' at?" and start punching each other. Nor does it cause us to say, "Hey babe, fancy a shag?" and start groping each other.

The effects of alcohol on behaviour are determined by cultural rules and norms, not by the chemical actions of ethanol.

There is enormous cross-cultural variation in the way people behave when they drink alcohol. There are some societies (such as the UK, the US, Australia and parts of Scandinavia) that anthropologists call "ambivalent" drinking-cultures, where drinking is associated with disinhibition, aggression, promiscuity, violence and anti-social behaviour.

There are other societies (such as Latin and Mediterranean cultures in particular, but in fact the vast majority of cultures), where drinking is not associated with these undesirable behaviours - cultures where alcohol is just a morally neutral, normal, integral part of ordinary, everyday life - about on a par with, say, coffee or tea. These are known as "integrated" drinking cultures.

This variation cannot be attributed to different levels of consumption - most integrated drinking cultures have significantly higher per-capita alcohol consumption than the ambivalent drinking cultures.

Instead the variation is clearly related to different cultural beliefs about alcohol, different expectations about the effects of alcohol, and different social rules about drunken comportment.Youth drinking Buckfast tonic wine In the UK, heavy drinking is associated with a range of stereotypes

This basic fact has been proved time and again, not just in qualitative cross-cultural research, but also in carefully controlled scientific experiments - double-blind, placebos and all. To put it very simply, the experiments show that when people think they are drinking alcohol, they behave according to their cultural beliefs about the behavioural effects of alcohol.

The British and other ambivalent drinking cultures believe that alcohol is a disinhibitor, and specifically that it makes people amorous or aggressive, so when in these experiments we are given what we think are alcoholic drinks - but are in fact non-alcoholic "placebos" - we shed our inhibitions.

We become more outspoken, more physically demonstrative, more flirtatious, and, given enough provocation, some (young males in particular) become aggressive. Quite specifically, those who most strongly believe that alcohol causes aggression are the most likely to become aggressive when they think that they have consumed alcohol.

Our beliefs about the effects of alcohol act as self-fulfilling prophecies - if you firmly believe and expect that booze will make you aggressive, then it will do exactly that. In fact, you will be able to get roaring drunk on a non-alcoholic placebo.

And our erroneous beliefs provide the perfect excuse for anti-social behaviour. If alcohol "causes" bad behaviour, then you are not responsible for your bad behaviour. You can blame the booze - "it was the drink talking", "I was not myself" and so on.

You've probably seen light that looks pink, but where does this colour come from? Different wavelengths of visible light correspond to colours of the rainbow - and pink isn't one of them. In our latest One-Minute Physics video, animator Henry Reich takes us through the mysterious make-up of pink light.

There’s No Such Thing as the Color Pink

Want to have your brain blown for a few minutes today? Dip your head in some physics, and realize that there's no such thing as pink. Scientifically speaking, that is: it's just something our brain makes up.

MinutePhysics puts it in predictably concise terms: all colors correspond to wavelengths of light. But there's no wavelength in there for pink! Instead, it's a combination of neural trickery—our brains strip green out of the spectrum to fill in for pink. Brains!http://gizmodo.com/5850825/theres-no-such-thing-as-pink

Logged

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

The 'flat earth' myth was concocted and popularized by Washington Irving and a French erudit and the 'flat error' was declared by Darwininst historians, who compared the denial of Darwin's theory to Columbus's struggle for acceptance by his scholastic religious contemporaries.

Neither Christopher Columbus, nor his contemporaries, believed the earth was flat. Yet this curious illusion persists today, firmly established with the help of the media, textbooks, teachers--even noted historians.

We all know that Christopher Columbus encountered stiff resistance about his idea of sailing off West to try and reach the East Indies. Many of us have laboured under the impression that people were concerned that he would sail off the edge of the Earth which was widely believed to be flat. History is thought to have vindicated Columbus against those filled with the Christian superstition of a flat Earth who held on to old fashioned beliefs. A minority of people are even under the impression that Galileo's trial centred on the subject rather than whether the Earth orbited the sun.

It comes as some surprise, therefore, to find that Columbus was wrong and his critics were right - not because the world is actually flat after all, but because at the time everyone knew it was a globe and were arguing about how big it was. The idea that the uncouth people of the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat is an example of the myth that has been propagated since the nineteenth century to give us a quite unfair view of this vibrant and exciting period.

So what was Columbus's mistake? The disagreement between him and his critics was over the size of the world - not an easy thing to measure. The story of this controversy can be traced back to the ancient Greeks and the various ways their writings were transmitted to the West.

The invention of the flat Earth myth can be laid at the feet of Washington Irving, who included it in his historical novel on Columbus, and the wider idea that the everyone in the Middle Ages was deluded has been widely accepted ever since.

The Pledge of Allegiance was the origin of the stiff-armed salute adopted later by the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis). For more information visit RexCurry.net, the site that archives the discoveries of the noted historian Dr. Rex Curry, author of the book "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets."

Jordan

With his newly created Tesla coils, the inventor soon discovered that he could transmit and receive powerful radio signals when they were tuned to resonate at the same frequency. When a coil is tuned to a signal of a particular frequency, it literally magnifies the incoming electrical energy through resonant action. By early 1895, Tesla was ready to transmit a signal 50 miles to West Point, New York... But in that same year, disaster struck. A building fire consumed Tesla's lab, destroying his work.

The timing could not have been worse. In England, a young Italian experimenter named Guglielmo Marconi had been hard at work building a device for wireless telegraphy. The young Marconi had taken out the first wireless telegraphy patent in England in 1896. His device had only a two-circuit system, which some said could not transmit "across a pond." Later Marconi set up long-distance demonstrations, using a Tesla oscillator to transmit the signals across the English Channel.

Tesla filed his own basic radio patent applications in 1897. They were granted in 1900. Marconi's first patent application in America, filed on November 10, 1900, was turned down. Marconi's revised applications over the next three years were repeatedly rejected because of the priority of Tesla and other inventors.

The Patent Office made the following comment in 1903:

Many of the claims are not patentable over Tesla patent numbers 645,576 and 649,621, of record, the amendment to overcome said references as well as Marconi's pretended ignorance of the nature of a "Tesla oscillator" being little short of absurd... the term "Tesla oscillator" has become a household word on both continents [Europe and North America].

But no patent is truly safe, as Tesla's career demonstrates. In 1900, the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company, Ltd. began thriving in the stock markets—due primarily to Marconi's family connections with English aristocracy. British Marconi stock soared from $3 to $22 per share and the glamorous young Italian nobleman was internationally acclaimed. Both Edison and Andrew Carnegie invested in Marconi and Edison became a consulting engineer of American Marconi. Then, on December 12, 1901, Marconi for the first time transmitted and received signals across the Atlantic Ocean.

Otis Pond, an engineer then working for Tesla, said, "Looks as if Marconi got the jump on you." Tesla replied, "Marconi is a good fellow. Let him continue. He is using seventeen of my patents."

But Tesla's calm confidence was shattered in 1904, when the U.S. Patent Office suddenly and surprisingly reversed its previous decisions and gave Marconi a patent for the invention of radio. The reasons for this have never been fully explained, but the powerful financial backing for Marconi in the United States suggests one possible explanation.

Tesla was embroiled in other problems at the time, but when Marconi won the Nobel Prize in 1911, Tesla was furious. He sued the Marconi Company for infringement in 1915, but was in no financial condition to litigate a case against a major corporation. It wasn't until 1943—a few months after Tesla's death— that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tesla's radio patent number 645,576. The Court had a selfish reason for doing so. The Marconi Company was suing the United States Government for use of its patents in World War I. The Court simply avoided the action by restoring the priority of Tesla's patent over Marconi.

worcesteradam

He has a net worth of about $7 million and has been cut off from that since the 1990s. He has lived parts of his life in absolute poverty. He is not much a fundamentalist muslim either, for example he gave his children Nintendos to play with

Heh, smart, smart girl. THIS is the reason they want to poison our minds so badly, their whole plan is so simple a three or four year old with a clear mind can see right through it.

Logged

You know what the funny and maybe just a little sad thing here is? Before their domestication by the Romans sheep were regarded as one of the more aggressive and free spirited creatures on this planet, sound familiar anyone?

Recorded music doesn’t sound as good as it used to. Recordings sound muddy, clipped and lack punch. This is due to the ‘loudness war’ that has been taking place in recording studios. To make a track stand out from the rest of the pack, recording engineers have been turning up the volume on recorded music. Louder tracks grab the listener’s attention, and in this crowded music market, attention is important. And thus the loudness war – engineers must turn up the volume on their tracks lest the track sound wimpy when compared to all of the other loud tracks. However, there’s a downside to all this volume. Our music is compressed. The louds are louds and the softs are loud, with little difference. The result is that our music seems strained, there is little emotional range, and listening to loud all the time becomes tedious and tiring.

The above puts brilliantly into words what I've long sensed has gone wrong with hard rock/heavy metal over the past decade or so.

Say what you want about Jimmy Page, but being a producer as well as a musician, he understood the two secrets to producing a "heavy" (i.e., spirit-stirring) sound -- distance ("distance equals depth") and contrast ("light and shade"):

I had a lot of ideas from my days with The Yardbirds. The Yardbirds allowed me to improvise a lot in live performance and I started building a textbook of ideas that I eventually used in Zeppelin. In addition to those ideas, I wanted to add acoustic textures. Ultimately, I wanted Zeppelin to be a marriage of blues, hard rock and acoustic music topped with heavy choruses – a combination that had never been done before. Lots of light and shade in the music.

In the same Guitar World interview, Page remarked, "Recording used to be a science", and "engineers used to have a maxim: distance equals depth." Taking this maxim to heart, Page developed the idea of placing an additional microphone some distance from the amplifier (as much as twenty feet) and then recording the balance between the two. By adopting this technique, Page became one of the first British producers to record a band's "ambient sound" – the distance of a note's time-lag from one end of the room to the other.

That understanding seems utterly lost on most if not all modern-day producers and engineers, and the quality of the music has suffered, in my view, as a direct result.

One thing I find particularly annoying about the "formula" that seemingly all hard rock bands have been emulating ad nauseum for all-too-many years now is that the lead singer -- instead of singing or screaming in tune -- must growl like he ate one too many habanero peppers and is consequently taking the most painful sh*t in human history. I just want to slap the guy upside the head and say, "Here, eat bell peppers from now on! For chrissake!"